STUDIO PHYSICS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
ALABAMA
Supported by the US Dept. of Education and The University of
Alabama
Statement
of the Problem
Traditional physics course:
3
lectures per week
1 laboratory (separate)
Large size
Issues
with Traditional Lecture
Inactive
learning
Poor attendance
Lack of coordination of labs/lectures
Inefficient use of technology
Impersonal
The
studio approach is:
Integrated
lecture/labs
Active learning
Technology
Almost daily assignments
Group work (mostly)
STUDIO IS ALSO:
 Flexible
 Adapts
to instructor’s tastes, styles
 Adapts to students’ needs
 Only
a structure
A LITTLE HISTORY

Foundation Coalition (NSF: Engineering)
 Active
Learning
 Technology in the classroom
 Teaming
 More technology in labs
DETAILS
Schedule: 2hrs, 2 days a week; 1 hr recitation
per week
 Short lectures
 Labs and activities for most of the 2-hr
sessions
 50-60 students per section
 Technology driven

Studio Physics Classroom
The University of Alabama
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Students in Studio Physics Classroom doing optics experiment
The University of Alabama
Department of Physics and Astronomy
The
faculty role
Professor:
lectures, guides
GTA: guides, leads recitation
section
UTA: guides
Student/teacher
ratio: 20/1
LABS
 Take
data electronically
 Analyze data numerically
 …But also do paper/pencil analysis
WHAT GOES ON IN A 2-HOUR CLASS?
Some lecture
 Problem-solving examples
 Clicker questions
 Exercises
 Simulations
 Labs once a week

RESOURCES
https://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/ph101.htm
 http://bama.ua.edu/~jharrell/PH105-F08/
 http://bama.ua.edu/~rschad/teaching/LABs/

http://www.as.ua.edu/ph/courses/Studio.html
 http://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/PH101105activities.htm

DO YOU COVER EVERYTHING?
No
 Must pick and choose
 Cover main items well
 Students responsible for rest
 This is a 4-hour course!

MISCONCEPTIONS
Students have preconceived ideas
 These are hard to dislodge
 People can hold conflicting concepts
simultaneously
 Students must be confronted by a conflict in
order to abandon a misconception

 More
than once
EXAMPLE
Consider a boat loaded with scrap iron in a
swimming pool. If the iron is thrown overboard
into the pool, will the water level at the edge of
the pool
A. rise,
B. fall, or
C. remain unchanged?

WHAT WE KNOW
Interactive engagement techniques outstrip
“traditional” in conceptual learning
(Hake,1997)
 Conceptual learning in mechanics often
measured with Force Concept Inventory
(Hestenes et al., 1992, 1995)
 Hake gain: g = (post – pre)/(100% - pre)

HAKE’S RESULTS
STUDIO FORMAT ALONE DOES NOT
GUARANTEE CONCEPTUAL LEARNING
Cummings et al. (1999): Interactive Lecture
Demonstrations (Sokoloff and Thornton,
1997) and Cooperative Group Problem
Solving (Heller et al., 1992) are effective in a
studio context.
 Many of Hake’s examples of interactive
engagement were lecture courses

OBSERVATIONS
Hake (1998): Students won’t take seriously
tasks they don’t get credit for.
 Students are not necessarily actively (or even
inactively) engaged when we think they are.

FCI gain
PH 105 sections
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Gain
0.3
0.25
studio sections
lecture sections
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
021
023
024
024
031
054
054
Term
064
071
071
73
074
074
PH101
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
PH101
0.2
0.1
0
023
054
071
071
073
074
074
RECITATION SESSIONS
Quiz?
 Help with homework
 Exercises
 Simulations
 Structured problem-solving

 e.g.
https://bama.ua.edu/~stjones/ph101.htm
CONCLUSIONS
Active learning
 Considerable student/teacher interaction
 Integration of labs and lecture material
 Collaborative learning
 Effective use of technology
